Back to Programme

Of Nature, Trust, and Health: Understanding Public Opinion of GM Foods

Kathleen Rose (University of Wisconsin-Madison)
Leona Su (University of Utah)
Christopher Wirz (University of Wisconsin-Madison)
Dominique Brossard (University of Wisconsin-Madison)
Dietram Scheufele (University of Wisconsin-Madison)
Michael Xenos (University of Wisconsin-Madison)

Keywords: Social, political, economic, and/or cultural issues

Abstract

In May 2016, the United States National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) released a comprehensive report examining the agricultural, environmental, economic, social, and human health impacts of genetically engineered (GE) crops worldwide. The report demonstrated that the impacts of GE crops are far reaching, influencing a multitude of sectors and nations through both agriculture and trade, with various nations responding differently to the potential benefits and threats of genetically modified (GM) foods. Indeed, the relative balance of potential benefits and threats from GE crops have sparked debates in the U.S. and abroad, making it increasingly important to understand the various positive and negative consequences of GM foods that might influence consumers’ risk perceptions.

Previous research has investigated different explanatory models to explain public opinion towards GM food, highlighting in particular the effect of values (political ideology and religiosity), knowledge levels, media coverage, level of trust in information providers, and demographics. Less understood is the relative weight of the perceptions of positive and negative potential consequences of GM foods in explaining risk perceptions, after controlling for the contributing factors which are suggested by the psychology of risk literature. Additionally, recent claims on the importance of ‘unnaturalness’ in explaining negative public opinion toward GM foods have yet to be empirically tested. From this, our overarching research question is the following: Once taking into account demographics, value predispositions, media attention, trust, and knowledge, what are the most important determinants of risk perceptions for GM foods, in terms of potential positive consequences (more nutritious; less expensive than conventional foods; can increase the world food supply) and potential negative consequences (pose a threat to the environment; only benefit manufacturers; cause allergies or other illness; unnatural).

To explore the impacts of the specific risk and benefit aspects on risk perceptions toward these foods, data was gathered from a 2015 representative survey of residents of a specific North American State, Wisconsin. As Wisconsin is an agriculture heavy state, many of the survey respondents are likely to be connected to agriculture in some way and the future direction of agriculture in the U.S. may be influenced by on-the-ground decisions taking place in the state. The survey was mailed to 2,000 Wisconsin residents based on a random address selection and had a final sample size of 931, with a 50.3% response rate after correcting for undeliverables.

After controlling for the aforementioned factors, results indicate that perceptions of positive and negative consequences have a significant and substantial impact on public risk perceptions of GM foods. As expected, religiosity and attention to GMO coverage in the media both positively predict risk perceptions. Examining the relative influence of the potential consequences, the negative consequences play a greater role in explaining risk perceptions. While unnaturalness does increase perceptions of risk, other factors (e.g., benefit food manufactures and cause allergies and illness) are of greater weight in explaining perceptions of risk. Implications for research on public opinion dynamics related to GM foods worldwide are discussed.